How do you feel about Trump publicly insulting his intelligent agencies before taking power?

[Happiness]

Not only will he not take his daily briefings because "I'm a smart person," but now he's publicly called them liars. The CIA et al are pissed.

A) not listening to his intelligence agencies is dangerous for the USA.
B) the cia is not an organisation it's healthy to get off side with. I'm fairly certain trump doesn't want the cia hell bent on investigating his past.

 

[Hard To Tell]

These are the same people who thought the 9/11 terrorists were not up to anything and that Sadam Huisan had weapons of mass destruction.

 

[The Witcher]

Who gives a shit honestly

 

[bobgeese]

If they think Russia had anything to do with Hillary being defeated in historic fashion, they're not very intelligent.

 

[lecter]

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Listening to its "intelligence" agencies seems to get the States into unjustifiable wars... maybe ignoring them is the way to go.

 

[gigantalor]

Hillary lost. Accept it.

 

[m52nickerson]

Well, we have had low information voters for years. Makes sense that we now have the first low information President.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Well his choice for Deputy Secretary of State goes on CNN and claims the DNC hacking was a False Flag Op by Obama. Think about that.

Why would Obama leak DNC emails to wikileaks and then claim Russia hacks (with CIA playing along) unless he's claiming the intent was to hurt Hillary and cost her the election and somehow he wanted Trump to win?

I mean how can he claim that with a straight face. And I bet the Alt-Reich will start running with it.

 

[Teppodama]

Is there proof? Has that proof been presented to the President and members of Congress? Without proof, it's speculation regardless of how well informed.

 

[Happiness]

Well his choice for Deputy Secretary of State goes on CNN and claims the DNC hacking was a False Flag Op by Obama. Think about that.

Why would Obama leak DNC emails to wikileaks and then claim Russia hacks (with CIA playing along) unless he's claiming the intent was to hurt Hillary and cost her the election and somehow he wanted Trump to win?

I mean how can he claim that with a straight face. And I bet the Alt-Reich will start running with it.

I can't even begin to make sense of this new propaganda machine; if faced with an uncomfortable situation it's straight to conspiracy island for Trump's team. It's totally insane and legitimately dangerous.

 

[Happiness]

Is there proof? Has that proof been presented to the President and members of Congress? Without proof, it's speculation regardless of how well informed.

Proof of what? Trump called them liars on tv and admitted he doesn't take briefings.

 

[ShoelessRye]

His choice for CIA Director will be an interesting confirmation hearing. "Rep. Pompeo do you trust your frontline agents or like the President you you believe they're a bunch of hacks?"

 

[TheComebackKid]

I love it personally. Trump may just be the GOAT prez before it's all said and done.

 

[Teppodama]

Proof of what? Trump called them liars on tv and admitted he doesn't take briefings.

Regardless of what Trump believes, for the CIA to make that statement do they in fact have proof of hacking, do they have an informant with specific knowledge of the activity that can then be verified. Is there in fact any specific proof that Russia was involved?

Is this hacked information specific to the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails? Is it specific to Podesta's emails? Was it information from HRC's server, or was it all of it?

Were voting machines hacked, if so, can verifiable proof be provided to Congress and the President?

It's one thing to say, we were hacked, provide proof of hacking, and make an educated guess as to who did it. It's another to state unequivocally that not only were hacked but this is definitely who did it and here is the proof of both.

 

[Happiness]

Regardless of what Trump believes, for the CIA to make that statement do they in fact have proof of hacking, do they have an informant with specific knowledge of the activity that can then be verified. Is there in fact any specific proof that Russia was involved?

Is this hacked information specific to the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails? Is it specific to Podesta's emails? Was it information from HRC's server, or was it all of it?

Were voting machines hacked, if so, can verifiable proof be provided to Congress and the President?

It's one thing to say, WE were hacked, provide proof of hacking, and make an educated guess as to who did it. It's another to state unequivocally that not only were hacked but this is definitely who did it and here is the proof of both.

We will see information after the investigation is complete. Obviously the CIA can't detail how it goes about getting information. Obama, McCain and others who have been briefed by the intelligence agencies certainly think that Russia was involved.

The problem here is trump and Co want no investigation, which is irresponsible and hints at culpability among the Trump camp.

 

[5H3RD0G]

What a boss.

 

[Teppodama]

We will see information after the investigation is complete. Obviously the CIA can't detail how it goes about getting information. Obama, McCain and others who have been briefed by the intelligence agencies certainly think that Russia was involved.

The problem here is trump and Co want no investigation, which is irresponsible and hints at culpability among the Trump camp.

There should without a doubt be an investigation. If nothing else it serves to put the issue to rest as to whether this is factual information or merely informed speculation.

We've seen too many times were actionable intelligence has been passed on and action taken only to find out that the information was not substantiated.

We KNOW the DNC was hacked. We KNOW Podesta was hacked. We can't say WE KNOW that such and such government were the ones behind it and lay down the proof, otherwise there would be no need for an investigation.

Right now we're at we BELIEVE we know who did it. And yet, the MSM have run with the story as if definitive proof has been provided.

 

[Happiness]

As a side note, watching spicer lose his shit was great entertainment.

 

[Happiness]

There should without a doubt be an investigation. If nothing else it serves to put the issue to rest as to whether this is factual information or merely informed speculation.

We've seen too many times were actionable intelligence has been passed on and action taken only to find out that the information was not substantiated.

We KNOW the DNC was hacked. We KNOW Podesta was hacked. We can't say WE KNOW that such and such government were the ones behind it and lay down the proof, otherwise there would be no need for an investigation.

Right now we're at we BELIEVE we know who did it. And yet, the MSM have run with the story as if definitive proof has been provided.

James Clapper has said Russia was involved. That's meaningful and a take it to the bank statement.